OJ may have been
acquitted because the jurors believed there was not enough evidence to
convict him, or maybe because they were righting previous wrongs,
personal prejudice or rejection of the police method of investigation.
If they believed he was guilty but voted otherwise, for whatever reason,
it was jury 'Nullification'.
Some who are opposed to
the Article 5 movement believe Nullification is the better way to fix
overreaches of the federal government. They believe that if a state
declares a federal law as unconstitutional the state can declare that
law null and void within the state borders. It's an old idea first
proposed in detail by John Calhoun when he was vice-president under John
Quincy Adams. There was even a political party with a couple of
representatives elected to Congress from the Nullification Party. When
South Carolina declared the Tariff of 1828 was unconstitutional and
therefore, null and void in within the boundaries of South Carolina,
federal military forces prepared to enforce the tariff. A Compromise
Tariff in 1833 prevented the use of force.
The main basis for
Nullification today is the 10th Amendment which says "The powers not
delegated to the
United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Nullifiers believe that individual states declaring federal actions unconstitutional and then refusing to obey them is the better way to negate the power of an federal government which has grown far beyond the powers delegated by the constitution.
Nullification may well be a valid way to reject the overreaches of the government. It was explicitly endorsed in writings by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and many others, but it is the better way? If states were to start nullifying all the legislation they were opposed to it would lead to chaos. OJ may have been a free man after the trial, but his aquittal left a trail of bad feelings across the country.
The Article 5 movement, however, is a well defined path clearly laid out in the Constitution. It is easy to understand with a straightforward path of execution. Carefully selected, pre-determined amendments to be considered, such as spending not exceeding revenues, and term limits to prevent career millionaire politicians should be acceptable to all, regardless of party. -JG- |